"On Friday, Indiana attorney Jim Bopp quietly lost reelection to the Republic National Committee. Bopp is the architect of the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court case that gave us super PAC's and the torrent of political spending that has turned elections into auctions.

"Bopp has been on the RNC since 2006, and Friday's vote is viewed as backlash for a series of extreme proposals. A 2009 resolution proposed by Bopp would have asked the Democratic Party to change its name to the "Democrat Socialist Party." A year later, Bopp proposed that Republican candidates be required to meet at least eight of 10 ironclad positions to receive financial support from the party: an unprecedented litmus test. Bopp created a super PAC that was instrumental in taking down centrist Republican Senator Dick Lugar.

"Bopp's extremism helps us understand the irrationality of the Citizens United case, which actually asserts that super PACs do not create corruption or even the appearance of corruption. You have to be an extremist or just naive to buy that assertion. Bopp's actions demonstrate that the infamous court case is part of the broader effort cede control of our country to monied interests while our leaders -- and the public -- become more polarized and divided.

"Dyed in wool conservatives like Indiana attorney Paul Ogden have opined, "After reading (Citizens United), I thought it nothing more than an activist opinion that, based on a creative interpretation of the Constitution, inappropriately usurped legislative power substituting instead what the court thought the best policy was, the exact sort of thing we conservatives have for decades criticized liberal judges for doing..." Senator John McCain called Citizens United "incredibly naive" and predicts "huge scandals" to occur as a result.

"The story of Jim Bopp explains why more and more grassroots conservatives are joining with grassroots liberals in support of sweeping campaign finance and lobbying reform. They are saying no to a system that allows a handful of billionaires to choose who gets elected, and who doesn't.

"They are saying no to a system where the most common sense public policies are traded for contributions -- be it banking, taxation, health, government waste, or any other issue central to the future of our nation and her people.

"The key to winning the elusive reform we so desperately need? Millions of people from across the political spectrum need to unite behind a comprehensive reform proposal, and back it with a political machine strong enough to force politicians to pass it. That's what it will take to clean up this mess, and that's what our organization is working with others to achieve. So, stay tuned...."

I think Citizens United helps the unions more then corporations.
The Unions have no shame in buying politicians. Corporations have a reputation to keep with their customers. Corporations need to be careful not to get unethical.
Corporations have not been spending a lot of money on super pacs. Most of that money is still coming from wealthy individuals

I think Citizens United helps the unions more then corporations.
The Unions have no shame in buying politicians. Corporations have a reputation to keep with their customers. Corporations need to be careful not to get unethical.
Corporations have not been spending a lot of money on super pacs. Most of that money is still coming from wealthy individuals

I would be opposed to citizens united, under two conditions, first off all public sector unions must be elimintated.

Secondly, anyone who is the direct beneficiary of TARGETED government money loses their right to vote.

If you are on the recieving end of welfare, foodstamps, section 8 housing etc.... you lose your right to vote, The same goes to public sector employees who get a non standard raise, i.e. If a governor decides to come in and give public sector workers a non scheduled boost in their wages by 10% all those workers should be disqualified from voting in the next election.

The same goes for the private sector, If your company recieved a bailout, as the owner you should not be allowed to vote or donate, and if your company is the recipient of a targeted industry specific subsidy you should also lose the ability to donate money, or vote.

Until then, the only way to compensate for the fact that government buys voters by handing out tax payers money, is for businesses to be able to compel voters to vote against them by throwing their money into the mix as well.

I.E. The only way to battle the government using taxpayers money to buy votes is for the tax payers to be able to use their money to buy votes.

Liberals always complain that there is no way the little guy can compete against businesses/taxpayers in terms of money, except, that is not the real competition, the real competition is between business/taxpayers and the public sector unions/left wing government in terms of who can spend more to buy a vote.

Once it is broken down that way, the amount of money that goes into politics is actually very fair.

Personally, I say remove all the money from the election process. Each candidate gets the same amount of money and they have to stand on their merits. No more mudslinging, no more ads run that are bullshit. Just debates.

Personally, I say remove all the money from the election process. Each candidate gets the same amount of money and they have to stand on their merits. No more mudslinging, no more ads run that are bullshit. Just debates.

More...

Too late. That genie is out of the bottle, and the GOP hates Newt for it.

Newt is the father of modern politics, it works, and it is here to stay.

Let the consumers tell the corporations if they feel the corporations have gone to far.

I want to make the politicians accountable to the public, not blame the source of the money.

More...

Oh yeah. Because in our democracy it should be one dollar one vote, not one person one vote.

The US is becoming a plutocracy. Maybe you like that idea. I for one don't.

Plutocracy (from Ancient Greek ploutos, meaning "wealth", and kratos, meaning "power, rule") is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.

"the twin capitalist parties control all the main avenues for reaching the masses (the press, radio, halls, etcetera... they collect millions from their wealthy masters and spend them to bamboozle the public and buy elections". [6]

Lot of misconceptions in that HuffPo article. The most important is that the First Amendment is not a popularity contest. It wouldnt matter if 90% opposed CU, the Court has ruled that corporations can use their own money to fund campaign ads that are not coordinated with candidates.

It seemed like a reasonable interpretation to me. The onus should properly be on those seeking to limit speech, not those who want to engage in it.

It's also no surprise that party hacks and longtime incumbents like McCain are opposed. McCain sponsored some of the most egregious limitations on core First Amendment values under the guise of campagin finance reform. He basically wants to outlaw any criticism of incumbents.

But back to the idea that constitutional rights are subject to popular approval. This is totally ironic as the left has utilized the courts for decades to get rulings that they could not achieve through the democratic process. Abortion, gay marriage, requiring states to support illegal aliens, etc. No matter how absurd the constitutional argument was, we were solemnly lectured that as good citizens, our duty was to salute the Court and respect its opinions. Now that some balance is creeping in, suddenly it's a whole different story. They are alarmed at what they inacceurately call "activism". True judicial activism is inventing "constitutional"rights, like the right to an abortion or to have gay sex. It is not activism to enforce the actual words of the Constitution.